DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC - 66 of   2017

 

 

      Sri Nirmal Karmakar,

S/O- Late Manindra Chandra Karmakar,

Salgara, P.S. R.K. Pur,

Udaipur, Gomati-799 120.  .…...Complainant.

 

 

       VERSUS

 

 

      1. Surana Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

(Commercial Vehicle Dealer),

Represented by its Manager,

A.A. Road, Chadrapur,

P.O. Khayerpur, P.S. East Agartala,

Agartala, West Tripura-799008.

 

 

      2. Hind Motors,

Represented by its Manager,

Kalitala, Champamura,

P.S. Ranirbazar,

Old Agartala, West Agartala,

West Tripura .

 

 

       3. TATA MOTORS REGIONAL OFFICE,

Represented by its Manager,

Godrej Building, 3rd Floor,

G.S. Road, Ulubari, 

P.O. & P.S. Guwahati,

Guwahati- 781 007.

 

       4. TATA MOTORS LIMITED,

(Represented by its Managing Director),

Commercial Vehicles Marketing Office,

20th Floor, Tower 2,

One Indiabulls Centre,

841 Senapati Bapat Marg,

Mumbai- 400 013.

 

 

       5. TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED,

(Represented by its Manager),

HGB Road, Agartala,

P.O. Agartala. P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura-799 001. ........... Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Bimal Kanti Nath,

  Advocate.

 

For the O.P. No.1 : Sri A.K. Bhowmik,

  Sri Raju Datta,

  Advocate.

 

For the O.P. No.2 : Sri Pradip Chakraborty,

  Smt. Sukriti Debnath,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.P. No.3 & 4 : Sri Amritlal Saha,

  Sri Kajla Nandi,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.P. No.5 : Sri Pranabashis Majumdar,

  Advocate.

  

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  15.12.2017.

 

 

J U D G M E N T       

This case arises on the petition filed by one Nirmal Karmakar U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased one Tata ACE DICOR light motor vehicle from the O.P. Tata Motors. But after purchase the vehicle was found defective. Again and again he went to the service centre for repairing. 14 times it was repaired. But defects not cured. He informed the service centre and also the Tata motors, Manufacturing company but did not get any relief. After taking delivery again and again the engine started problem so he prayed for replacement of the vehicle and also compensation. Legal notice was sent thereafter the case filed. 

 

2. O.P. appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that there was no clause for replacement. The vehicle was repaired again and again and proper service was given. Petitioner is not a consumer and he purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose so this petition is to be dismissed.

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the O.P. sold out a defective vehicle to the petitioner and did unfair trade practice?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 

4. Petitioner produced the Sale Certificate, Cash Memo, Challan, Job Card, Invoice, Tax Token, Money Receipts, Advocate's Notice, Delivery Challan, Registration Certificate. Petitioner also produced the statement of affidavit of one witness, Nirmal Karmakar. 

 

5. O.P. on the other hand produced the Sale Certificate, Job Card, Letters, Advocate's Notice. Produced the statement on affidavit of Rajesh Rampuria, Ankan Saha and Amalendu Nath.

 

6. On the basis of all these evidence before us and the written argument we shall now determine the above points.

 

Findings and decision;

 

7. The purchase of vehicle by the petitioner is admitted and established fact. From the evidence on record it is found that the petitioner purchased the vehicle for his self employment so it is not for commercial purpose. O.P. also could not produce any documentary or oral evidence to support that only for commercial purpose the vehicle was purchased. The petitioner himself used the vehicle for his own subsistence for self employment. So, definitely he is a consumer. Petitioner stated that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. But there is no expert opinion in support of this. In order to prove the manufacturing defect the expert opinion or opinion of the mechanic person is necessary. Therefore, the evidence produced failed to prove that the vehicle had any manufacturing defect. However, it is admitted position that after purchase of the vehicle it was repaired 4 times. The job card produced before us clearly established that again and again petitioner had to go the service centre for repairing. On 01.12.15 as per statement of Rajesh Rampuria, D.W. 2 the vehicle was handed over to Hind Motors for rectification of the engine. However, after check up the vehicle was released. On 12.03.16 the vehicle handed over for repairing. On 22.12.16 it was again handed over and it was not taken back. This fact is also supported by Ankush Saha, D.W.2. Petitioner produced the Job Card, on 08th May, 2017. Again Job Card issued on several dates. On 22.12.16, 27.06.16, 22.11.16, 12.09.16 and 31.08.15. From the documents produced before us it is found that after purchase of the vehicle on 01.12.15 again and again the vehicle had to be repaired as it was within the warranty so the vehicle repaired without any charge.

 

8. From the perusal of the warranty it is found that in case of any defect within the warranty period the parts are to be replaced. But there is no provision for replacement of the engine or vehicle. Within 1 year warranty period service centre repaired it again and again and also replaced the parts. The Finance company had no deficiency of service and there is also no claim against the Tata Finance company. The Surana motors only sold out the vehicle and Tata Motors is the Manufacturer. They had also no deficiency of service. Only the service centre, Hind Motors had the deficiency of service as they could not give proper service. Due to their improper service the vehicle was out of order again and again. Several times petitioner had to visit the service centre. It was repaired but again it was not working. So we consider that there was deficiency of service by O.P. Service Centre and they should compensate the petitioner by payment of Rs.40,000/-(Forty Thousand). As the vehicle is repaired  so petitioner is to take back the vehicle from the Hind Motors and Hind Motors is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- & Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the petitioner. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

9. We direct the O.P. Hind Motors to pay Rs.45,000/-(Rupees Forty Five Thousand) to the petitioner and hand over the vehicle to the petitioner after full repairing. The amount is to paid within 2 months if not paid it will carry interest @ 9 % P.A.

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA